Academy of Management The Academy of Management Journal

Impact of Exchange Variables on Exit, Voice, Loyalty, and Neglect: An Integrative Model
of Responses to Declining Job Satisfaction

Author(s): Caryl E. Rusbult, Dan Farrell, Glen Rogers and Arch G. Mainous III
Source: The Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 31, No. 3 (Sep., 1988), pp. 599-627
Published by: Academy of Management
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/256461
Accessed: 06-04-2017 13:22 UTC
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted
digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about
JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms
Academy of Management is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The
Academy of Management Journal
This content downloaded from 121.52.146.136 on Thu, 06 Apr 2017 13:22:21 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
? Academy of Management Journal
1988, Vol. 31, No. 3, 599-627.
IMPACT OF EXCHANGE VARIABLES

ON EXIT, VOICE, LOYALTY, AND NEGLECT:
AN INTEGRATIVE MODEL OF RESPONSES
TO DECLINING JOB SATISFACTION
CARYL E. RUSBULT
University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
DAN FARRELL
Western Michigan University
GLEN ROGERS
Alverno College
ARCH G. MAINOUS III
University of Texas, Austin
This research offers a new theory predicting the effects of three ex-
change variables, job satisfaction, investment size, and quality of
alternatives, on four general responses to dissatisfaction-exit, voice,
loyalty, and neglect. Three studies designed to test model predictions
received good support. High satisfaction and investment encouraged
voice and loyalty and discouraged exit and neglect. Satisfaction and
investment interacted, with variations in investment most strongly pro-
moting voice given high satisfaction. Better alternatives encouraged exit
and voice and discouraged loyalty. However, there was no link between
alternatives and neglect.
One of the most important themes in the history of research on organiza-

tional behavior has been the study of employees' responses to job dissatis-
faction. Concern with responses to decline in satisfaction is not misplaced.
No organization can guarantee uniformly high satisfaction, and understand-
ing the ways in which workers react to lapses in job satisfaction is central to
understanding overall organizational effectiveness-job satisfaction-dissatis-
faction is a critical variable linked with absenteeism, turnover, and em-
ployee dissent (Staw, 1984). Traditionally, researchers working in this do-
main have explored the effects of predictors such as pay or seniority on such
employee responses to dissatisfaction as absenteeism, quitting, or grievance
This research was supported in part by a Dunhill Foundation grant to the first two authors
from the American Society of Personnel Administrators. We are grateful to the Communication
Workers of America for their willingness to participate in study two, to Linda Gellert for her
assistance in carrying out study two, and to Martha Hyatt and Ramon Padilla for their help in
conducting study three. We thank two anonymous reviewers for their comments on an earlier
version of this manuscript.
599
600 Academy of Management Journal September
filing. Although that approach to the study of the consequences of declining

satisfaction has been a fruitful one, shortcomings of the resulting literature
are apparent.
One criticism is that investigators have not defined the dependent vari-
ables in sufficiently broad terms (Staw, 1984); as Rosse and Hulin stated,
researchers tend to examine "surface variables" (1985: 325) rather than behav-
ioral patterns or syndromes representing broader theoretical constructs. For
example, it is only recently that researchers have come to view job turnover
and job transfer as specific examples of a more general theoretical construct
(Jackofsky & Peters, 1983). A second, related problem is the use of specific,
atheoretical predictors of employee behavior (Steers & Rhodes, 1978). The
use of existing organizational characteristics and policies (e.g., retirement
policies, seniority) as correlates of absence behavior illustrates this relatively
concrete, atheoretical approach. Research in related fields has obtained strong
predictive power by using independent and dependent variables of the same
conceptual level, variables that represent abstract, unobserved constructs or
response classes. An example is the use of attributional processes to explain
leader emergence (Calder, 1977).
This is not to say that there are no models of response to dissatisfaction
that embody a more integrative strategy. One approach to the study of re-
sponses to decline in satisfaction, often called progression theory, suggests
that responses to dissatisfaction differ in intensity and that employees prog-
ress from less to more intense responses as dissatisfaction persists or intensi-
fies (e.g., Blau, 1985; Ferris, 1985; Sheridan, 1985; Youngblood, 1984). For
example, an employee might initially react to dissatisfaction with increased
absence and later respond by quitting the job. Empirical tests of relation-
ships among withdrawal behaviors have revealed significant but weak and
inconsistent support for asserted relationships (Clegg, 1983; Wolpin & Burke,
1985). A second approach has emphasized the role of performance in predict-
ing turnover and other responses to job dissatisfaction and frustration
(Jackofsky, 1984; Keller, 1984; O'Connor, Peters, Pooyan, Weekley, Frank, &
Erenkrantz, 1984; Wells & Muchinsky, 1985). A common assumption in such
models is that, given high perceived desirability of movement or low intrin-
sic rewards, superior performance is associated with high perceived ease of
moving to another job (March & Simon, 1958), and thus a positive relation-
ship between performance and turnover is predicted. However, recent stud-
ies have revealed contradictory findings regarding this issue; some research
has found positive associations between performance and turnover (Wells &
Muchinsky, 1985), and some has revealed negative associations (Keller, 1984;
O'Connor et al., 1984). Researchers taking a third approach have proposed
that absence and turnover are differentially probable as a function of length
of organizational service (Hill & Trist, 1955; Rosse & Hulin, 1985; Rosse &
Miller, 1984). Recent work in this tradition has benefited from cognitive
psychology, For example, Mowday, Porter, and Steers (1982) developed a
broad cognitive model of employee turnover, including residual categories
such as efforts to change a situation and "alternative modes of accommo-
1988 Rusbult, Farrell, Rogers, and Mainous 601
dation" (1982: 124). Though scholars taking the third approach have pro-
posed some theories that move beyond simple unidimensional explanations
and some that explore multiple responses, most of the models are fairly
concrete, somewhat atheoretical, or lacking a broad set of known responses
to dissatisfaction such as error rates (Petty & Bruning, 1980), transfers (Todor
& Dalton, 1982), and grievance filing (Allen & Keaveny, 1985; Dalton &
Todor, 1982).
This research outlined and tested a new theory intended to serve as an
integrative model of responses to job dissatisfaction. The theory includes
multiple predictor variables and a comprehensive typology of the range of
available responses and aim's at a broad, abstract level of explanation. The
typology is based on Hirschman's (1970) discussion of responses to organiza-
tional decline and on Rusbult's model of responses to dissatisfaction in close
relationships (Rusbult, Zembrodt, & Gunn, 1982). The typology includes
four response categories: Exit refers to leaving an organization by quitting,
transferring, searching for a different job, or thinking about quitting. Voice
describes actively and constructively trying to improve conditions through
discussing problems with a supervisor or co-workers, taking action to solve
problems, suggesting solutions, seeking help from an outside agency like a
union, or whistle-blowing. Loyalty means passively but optimistically wait-
ing for conditions to improve-giving public and private support to the
organization, waiting and hoping for improvement, or practicing good
citizenship. Neglect refers to passively allowing conditions to deteriorate
through reduced interest or effort, chronic lateness or absences, using com-
pany time for personal business, or increased error rate.
The four categories relate to one another in a systematic fashion, as
demonstrated in Farrell's (1983) multidimensional scaling study. Exit, voice,
FIGURE 1
Exit, Voice, Loyalty, and Neglect Typology of Responses to Job Dissat
Active
EXIT VOICE
Destructive Constructive
NEGLECT LOYALTY
Passive
loyalty, and neglect differ along dimensions of constructiveness versus de-

structiveness and activity versus passivity (see Figure 1). Voice and loyalty
are constructive responses in which an individual attempts to revive or
maintain satisfactory employment conditions, whereas exit and neglect are
more destructive. We defined the dimension of constructiveness-destructive-
ness in terms of impact on employee-organization relationships and immedi-
ate sources of dissatisfaction, not in terms of its broader functional value. For
example, a worker's exit might be constructive for that employee or for his or
her organization but destructive in that it dissolves the employee-organization
link. On the second dimension, exit and voice are active mechanisms through
which employees attempt to deal with dissatisfaction (Spencer, 1986),
whereas loyalty and neglect are more passive and diffuse; Milburn, Schuler,
and Watman suggested this contrast, stating "the individual will decide to be
either passive or active vis-a-vis the antecedents of the crisis" (1983: 1165).
"Passive" refers to the impact of an action on a problem and not to the
character of a response itself. For example, a neglectful response, such as
chronic absenteeism, involves overt action, though it is passive and destruc-
tive in regard to work problems. Finally, it should be noted that the category
names are labels for a broad range of related responses. Voice includes not
just vocalizing to discover solutions but also taking unilateral action to
solve problems. Neglect includes very passive responses such as reduced
interest as well as responses that are only moderately passive (e.g., inten-
tionally missing work). Prior research using this typology has demonstrated
that the four responses relate empirically in accordance to the hypothe-
sized structure: behaviors within categories relate more strongly to one an-
other than to responses in adjacent or opposing categories, and measures of
each response possess both convergent and discriminant validity (Farrell,
1983; Rusbult & Lowery, 1985).1
THE IMPACT OF EXCHANGE VARIABLES

ON EXIT, VOICE, LOYALTY, AND NEGLECT
Under what circumstances are employees likely to engage in each cate-

gory of response? The proposed theory extended traditional exchange theory
constructs (Blau, 1964; Homans, 1961), particularly interdependence theory
(Kelley & Thibaut, 1978; Thibaut & Kelley, 1959).2 Previous studies have
I Indeed, factor analysis of items from an instrument designed to measure exit, voice, loyalty,
and neglect responses-an instrument similar to those used in the present studies-revealed
excellent evidence for the proposed structure. The analysis revealed two primary factors, one
with positive loadings for loyalty items and negative loadings for exit items and a second with
positive loadings for voice items and negative loadings for neglect items (Farrell & Rusbult,
1986).
2 The assumptions underlying the model mirror those of interdependence theory. We as-
sumed that employees react in a sensible and reasonable manner to work situations, given their
dispositions and perceptions of situational contingencies. In reacting to a given situation, indi-
viduals consider both immediate and long-term consequences for themselves and for others
with whom they are interdependent. Such responses are often based on deliberate, thoughtful
decisions, though habitual response tendencies may develop in reaction to familiar situations.
used the critical predictors in the model to account for employee turnover
(Farrell & Rusbult, 1981; Rusbult & Farrell, 1983). We suggest that three
primary variables should affect the likelihood that an employee will engage
in each response-level of overall job satisfaction, or satisfaction prior to a
problem; magnitude of investment in a job; and quality of job alternatives.
We have defined the three predictors broadly and abstractly, and thus they
match the conceptual level of the exit, voice, loyalty, and neglect model.
First, in comparison to employees who were satisfied with a job before
the emergence of problems, employees with lower prior satisfaction should
be more likely to engage in destructive responses and less likely to engage in
constructive responses. As has been well documented elsewhere, the compo-
nents of job satisfaction include feelings regarding supervision, pay, and
co-worker relations ( Hulin & Smith, 1965; Locke, 1969). To the degree that
overall satisfaction is great, employees should evidence a strong tendency to
respond to specific work problems with voice or loyalty and should display
a weak tendency to react with exit or neglect.3 Employees who have been
generally satisfied with their jobs should feel strongly motivated to restore
good working conditions and may also feel optimistic about the possibilities
for improvement. Although previous research has not directly examined
level of prior satisfaction, there is some good indirect support for these
assertions: Low job satisfaction has been shown to be associated with strong
tendencies toward exit behaviors such as quitting (Cotton & Tuttle, 1986;
Dalessio, Silverman, & Schuck, 1986; Steel & Ovalle, 1984), transferring
(Campion & Mitchell, 1986; Todor, 1980), and intending to quit (Hom, Griffeth,
& Sellaro, 1984; Mowday, Koberg, & McArthur, 1984) and has also been
associated with tendencies toward neglectful behaviors such as lateness (Adler
& Golan, 1981; Farrell & Robb, 1980), increased error rate (Petty & Bruning,
1980), and absence (Gaudet, 1963; Muchinsky, 1977). High job satisfaction
appears to promote voice behaviors such as grievance filing (Allen & Keaveny,
1985; Dalton & Todor, 1982; Price, Dewire, Nowack, Schenkel, & Ronan,
1976) and making job suggestions (VanZelst & Kerr, 1953) and acts of loyalty
such as good citizenship behavior (Bateman & Organ, 1983; Smith, Organ, &
Near, 1983) and job commitment (Aranya, Kushnir, & Valency, 1986; Ferris
& Aranya, 1983). Thus,
Hypothesis 1: Employees with high levels of overall job
satisfaction and high prior satisfaction should be more
likely to engage in voice and loyalty and less likely to
3 It is useful to think of prior satisfaction, or overall satisfaction, as the ground against which
the figure of a current dissatisfying incident is evaluated. In the final analysis, it is probably the
relationship between level of overall satisfaction and level of current dissatisfaction that di-
rectly influences response mode. Thus, a more precise definition of current dissatisfaction and a
more precise prediction of response tendencies may ultimately result from a mathematical
combination of information about variables such as prior/general satisfaction, probability of
future satisfaction, severity of a specific work problem, and importance of a specific work
problem.
engage in exit and neglect than employees with low over-

all job satisfaction.
Second, the constructiveness of employees' responses to dissatisfaction
should be positively related to their investment in their jobs. By investment,
we mean resources an employee has put into a job that have become intrinsic
to that position, such as years on the job, nonportable training, familiarity
with the organization and supervisor, and nonvested retirement funds, and
resources that were originally extraneous but have become connected to the
job, such as convenient housing and travel arrangements and friends at work
(Becker, 1960; Ritzer & Trice, 1969; Rubin & Brockner, 1975). Employees
who have great investment in their jobs have much to lose by abandoning
them and should be more likely to engage in voice or loyalty than those with
low investment. With low investment, an employee has little to lose if the
job were to end, so exit and neglect responses should become more probable.
Indeed, previous research has linked voice behaviors such as making job
suggestions and grievance filing with investments such as seniority (VanZelst
& Kerr, 1953) and prior promotions (Price et al., 1976). Psychological and
material investment has been shown to promote loyalty responses such as
commitment, positive work attitudes, and good citizenship behavior (Arkes
& Blumer, 1985; Buchanan, 1974; Meyer & Allen, 1984). Quitting and intent
to quit appear to be inhibited by relatively greater length of service (Ferris &
Aranya, 1983; Rusbult & Farrell, 1983; Werbel & Gould, 1984; Youngblood,
Mobley, & Meglino, 1983), identification with a job (Koch & Steers, 1978),
and training (Guzzo, Jette, & Katzell, 1985; Wanous, Stumpf, & Bedrosian,
1979). Similarly, previous research has shown neglectful behaviors like
absence, lateness, and lack of effort to be inversely related to investments
such as cross-training, work-connected recreational programs, and home
ownership (Pascale, 1978; Watson, 1981). Thus,
Hypothesis 2: Employees with high investment in a job
should be more likely to engage in voice and loyalty and
less likely to engage in exit and neglect than employees
with low investment.
Third, to the degree that employees have high-quality alternatives to th

current job, they should be likely to engage in active responses. Good
alternatives, such as attractive job opportunities, the possibility of early
retirement, or the acceptable option of not working, create in an individual
the motivation to do something (shape up or ship out) and provide a source
of power for bringing about change because the employee has acceptable
options if the job declines further or ends. In the absence of good alternatives,
the options are to wait quietly for conditions to improve (remain loyal) or to
passively allow conditions to worsen (engage in neglect). The findings of
research on the effects of alternatives such as employment opportunities,
high personal esteem, labor supply, and external support have been consis-
tent with those predictions. Good alternatives promote exit behaviors such
as quitting and intent to quit (Dreher & Dougherty, 1980; Farrell & Rusbult,
1981; Mowday et al., 1984; Price & Mueller, 1981; Schneider, 1976; Stumpf &
Hartman, 1984) and voice behaviors such as whistle-blowing (Miceli & Near,
1984), grievance filing (Fleishman & Harris, 1962; Muchinsky & Maassarani,
1980), and constructive social movements (Lammers, 1969; Zald & Berger,
1978). Employees with poor alternatives evidence high levels of loyal behav-
iors like job commitment (McLaughlin & Butler, 1974; Pfeffer & Lawler,
1980) and of neglectful responses like absenteeism and slow-down behav-
iors (Behrend, 1953; Crowther, 1957; Larson & Fukami, 1985; Owens, 1966;
Watson, 1981; Youngblood, 1984). Thus,
Hypothesis 3: Employees with high-quality alternatives
should be more likely to engage in exit and voice and less
likely to engage in loyalty and neglect than employees
with poor-quality alternatives.
TESTS OF THE MODEL
We designed three studies to provide direct empirical tests o

Study one, a simulation experiment, provided preliminary information re-
garding the causal impact of the model's variables on responses to dissatisfac-
tion and allowed for the study of variables, such as intense dissatisfaction,
that are difficult to manipulate ethically and powerfully in a laboratory
experiment. Study two, a large-scale cross-sectional field survey, extended
external validity in two ways. First, it explored the effects of generalized job
satisfaction, investment size, and quality of alternatives on generalized tend-
encies toward exit, voice, loyalty, and neglect. Second, it tested the model's
predictions among actual employees. Study three, a laboratory experiment,
complemented studies one and two, focusing on the causal impact of model
variables in an experimental work setting, by examining temporal changes in
response tendencies over an extended period of declining satisfaction and
by using additional-and more behavioral-measures of exit, voice, loyalty,
and neglect.
The three studies complemented one another to maximize both con-
struct and external validity (Cook & Campbell, 1979). Employing multiple
methodologies and multiple measurement methods enhanced construct
validity. Exploring response tendencies for multiple populations (simulated
and real employees) in multiple settings enhanced external validity.
STUDY ONE
Methods
Subjects. Sixty-four men and 64 women participated to fulfill the re-

search experience requirements for introductory psychology at the Univer-
sity of Kentucky during the 1984-85 academic year. We randomly assigned 8
men and 8 women to each of eight conditions. No data were excluded.
Procedures. Approximately 20 students reported to each laboratory
session, where the experimenter (one of the authors) delivered instructions.
Each subject read an essay describing a hypothetical situation in which the

protagonist was faced with declining working conditions (see Appendix A).
The hypothetical employee's supervisor had begun to give arbitrary and
inconsistent instructions, and the employee felt that those instructions were
neither appropriate nor helpful.
Level of prior job satisfaction was manipulated through variations in
descriptions of the employee's job. Employees worked for a mediocre or for a
good company that provided a decent or a high salary for work that was
described as moderately or as really enjoyable. Investment size was manipu-
lated through variations in job tenure. Employees had worked for the com-
pany for a short or for a long period of time-two months or two years.
Quality of alternatives was manipulated through variations in descriptions
of an alternative job offer. Employees had offers that were not very or very
attractive, with poor or good pay and no challenge or high challenge (see
Appendix A). Participants were asked to place themselves mentally in the
situation described and to complete a questionnaire indicating how they
would react. The questionnaire included two manipulation checks for each
independent variable and a 17-item scale that measured tendencies toward
each response to dissatisfaction. There were four items each to measure exit,
voice, and loyalty and five to measure neglect (see Appendix A).
Results
Reliability of measures. Reliability coefficients were calculated for the

measures designed to assess tendencies toward exit, voice, loyalty, and ne-
glect as well as for the manipulation checks for each independent variable.
Table 1 presents alphas for each set. The coefficient for the voice items was
lower than desired, which suggests that this category may be more heteroge-
neous than the others.4 In addition, we assessed the discriminant validity of
our measures by calculating the average correlation between the items in
each set and those in every other set. For example, the four exit items were
correlated with the four voice items, producing a matrix of 16 correlation
coefficients, which we averaged. As expected, given the structure of the
typology, these correlations were negligible or weak. The average r was .00;
the range was from -.24 to .18. The average r for opposing categories was
-.17, the average r for adjacent categories was .06, and the average r for
items within categories was .42. We judged the items designed to measure
4 That some categories may be more heterogeneous should not be surprising. For example,
the strength of the reliability coefficient for the exit category suggests that exit may be a largely
homogeneous category of response. It is likely that employees who say that they intend to quit
will also say that they have explored alternative jobs and have thought about quitting. In
contrast, the coefficient for the voice category is lower. Those who voice by discussing problems
with their supervisor will not necessarily engage in other forms of voice. Thus, variability in
size of reliability coefficients may reflect real differences in category complexity. Such differ-
ences do not undermine the usefulness of the proposed typology. Its usefulness lies in its ability
to identify categories wherein responses within a given category bear more conceptual and
empirical similarity to one another than to responses in other categories.
each set to be acceptably reliable and distinct from those designed to mea-
sure other response categories, so we formed a single averaged measure of
each construct.
Manipulation checks. The manipulation checks were subjected to a three-
factor analysis of variance. Subjects in the low-prior-satisfaction condition
reported lower satisfaction with their jobs than did those in the high-prior-
satisfaction condition (X = 4.31 and 8.27, respectively; F1,120 = 497.58, p <
.001).5 Low-investment participants reported lower investment size than did
their high-investment counterparts (x = 2.55 and 6.48, respectively; F1,120 =
264.49, p < .001). And participants in the poor-alternatives condition de-
scribed their alternatives more negatively than did those in the good-
alternatives condition (x = 1.86 and 7.86, respectively; F1,120 = 1,455.92, p <
.001). We examined interaction terms to assess the stability of our manipu-
lations. No sizable interaction effects were observed: the next largest F value
was 7.68, which is small in comparison to those listed above.
Testing model predictions. To test our predictions, a three-factor multi-
variate analysis of variance was performed on the exit, voice, loyalty, and
neglect measures. Table 2 presents both multivariate and univariate Fs for
each main effect. Consistent with predictions, the multivariate effect of prior
satisfaction was significant, with high satisfaction producing strong tenden-
cies toward voice and loyalty and weak tendencies toward exit and neglect.
The multivariate effect of the investment-size manipulation was marginally
significant: high investment size produced low levels of exit and high levels
of loyalty. The investment manipulation did not significantly affect voice or
neglect, however. The multivariate effect of the manipulation of quality of
alternatives was significant, with good alternatives encouraging high exit
and voice and discouraging loyalty. The quality-of-alternatives manipula-
tion did not significantly affect neglect responses.
TABLE 1
Reliability Coefficients for All Model Variables, Studies One, Two, and T
Job Investment Quality of

Satisfaction Size Alternatives Exit Voice Loyalty Neglect
Study one .97 .81 .98 .89 .45 .75 .79

Study two .84 .62 .78 .76 .57 .56 .69
Study three .77 .85 .58 .97 .77 .70 .82
a Table values are the alphas for the se

study. For study two, the job-satisfaction
are the predictor variables; for studies o
5 Further analyses of the manipulation-c

were robust, holding not only for the ave
manipulation check items that were com
TABLE 2
Results of MANOVA, Study Onea
Variablesb Exit Voice Loyalty Neglect Multivariate F/

High job satisfaction 3.15 6.70 5.23 2.64
Low job satisfaction 4.94 6.25 3.53 3.18
F 55.58** 3.97* 47.31** 3.83** 22.48**
High investment size 3.80 6.60 4.67 2.81
Low investment size 4.29 6.36 4.09 3.01
F 4.17* 1.12 5.65* 0.55 2.27t
High-quality alternatives 5.65 6.75 3.90 2.77
Low-quality alternatives 2.44 6.21 4.86 3.05
F 177.46** 5.64* 15.20** 1.04 63.75**
a Values are the mean level of each res

b The F rows list the univariate eff
variable.
c The multivariate F column lists the multivariate effect of each independent variable on
the four responses.
tp < .10
*p < .05
**p < .01
To explore the boundaries of the simple additive model presented in th

introduction, we also examined interaction terms. There were two signifi-
cant two-factor interactions. The interaction of satisfaction and investment
was significant for the voice measure; high investment encouraged strong
voice only under conditions of high satisfaction. The second interaction was
an intensification effect. Good alternatives encouraged exit given either low
or high satisfaction, but this effect was strongest under conditions of low
prior satisfaction.
To assess the generalizability of these findings for men and women, we
performed a four-factor multivariate analysis of variance. Only one effect
involving gender was significant: gender, prior satisfaction, and investment
interacted in affecting voice. Women voiced at high levels given high satisfac-
tion and high investment or low satisfaction and low investment. Men voiced
as predicted-high investment encouraged strong voice with either low or
high satisfaction.
STUDY TWO
Methods
Respondents. The respondents were employees of a large communica-

tions utility company. A randomly selected third of the membership of 11
locals of the representing union (n = 864) were mailed questionnaires, cover
letters, and stamped return envelopes in the spring of 1983. We mailed two
sets of follow-up materials, following Dillman's (1978) methods. The overall
response rate was 55 percent, with 473 employees responding, 54 percent of
whom were men.6 The typical respondent was 40.9 years of age, had 12.5
years of schooling, and earned $23,200 per year.
Questionnaire. The questionnaire obtained measures of all model predic-
tors and criteria as well as demographic information. For each independent
variable-job satisfaction, investment size, and quality of alternatives-we
obtained both concrete and global measures. The concrete measures taught
respondents the meaning of the global items (Farrell & Rusbult, 1981; Rusbult
& Farrell, 1983). For example, it might be difficult to answer the question, "Are
there things uniquely associated with this job that you would lose if you
were to leave?" without a few concrete examples of investments that might be
lost such as nonvested retirement funds and specific job training. Most of the
concrete items had 3-point Likert-type scales, and all the global items had
5-point Likert scales. The exit, voice, loyalty, and neglect items were similar
to those employed in study one, altered to measure generalized response
tendencies rather than responses to a particular dissatisfying incident and to
be appropriate for actual employees (see Appendix B).
Results
Reliability of measures. Table 1 presents reliability coefficients for each

variable. As in study one, we assessed the discriminant validity of the items
by calculating correlations between items from each set and those from every
other set. Again, these correlations were low (average r = -.01, range = -.15
to .16), with an average correlation of -.11 for items in opposing categories
and an average of .04 for items in adjacent categories (average r for items
within categories =.33). Since our measures appeared to be acceptably reli-
able within categories and discrete across categories, we formed a single
averaged measure of each construct.
Validity of independent variables. Both concrete and global measures of
the three independent variables were obtained. We used multiple regression
analysis to assess the relationship between the several concrete measures of
each construct and their global counterparts. We found evidence for the
validity of our measures: concrete measures were significantly correlated
with global measures for job satisfaction (adjusted R2 = .499), investment size
(adjusted R2 = .349), and quality of alternatives (adjusted R2 = .490). Thus, our
predictor variables appeared to be valid measures of the constructs they
were intended to assess.
Testing model predictions. To assess the effects of all predictors on eac
response, we performed four multiple regression analyses with simultaneou
inclusion of predictors. Table 3 presents means, standard deviations, and
zero-order correlations, and Table 4 presents a summary of the results of the
multiple regression analyses. Collectively, satisfaction, investment, and alter-
natives significantly predicted each of the four responses. Higher job satisfac-
tion was associated with higher loyalty and lower exit and neglect. Higher
6 Thus, our sample resembled national labor force averages in education and proportion of
men; members were slightly older and earned slightly higher salaries than the average.
investment size was associated with higher tendencies toward voice and
lower tendencies toward exit and neglect. And good alternatives encouraged
the exit and voice responses. No other regression coefficients were significant,
though the zero-order correlations were significant for the investment-loyalty
(r = .15) and alternatives-loyalty (r = -.12) relationships.
To determine whether the interactions observed in study one emerged in
study two, we performed a median split on the satisfaction measure and
calculated separate investment-voice correlations for the low- and high-
satisfaction groups. Consistent with study one's results, those analyses re-
vealed that the investment-voice relationship was greater for the high-
satisfaction group than for the low-satisfaction group, but this difference was
not statistically significant (r = .12 and .07, respectively; z = 1.11) (Cohen &
Cohen, 1975). Also consistent with study one, the investment-voice correla-
tion was significantly greater for men than for women (r = .21 and -.09,
respectively; z = 6.57). In study one we also found that the impact of quality
of alternatives on exit was strongest given low job satisfaction. No such
intensification effect emerged in study two. Quality of alternatives was as
TABLE 3
Means, Standard Deviations, and Zero-Order Correlations, Study Two
Variables Means s.d. 1 2 3 4 5 6
1. Exit 1.93 1.28

2. Voice 3.56 1.26 .21**
3. Loyalty 3.31 1.30 -.33** -.03
4. Neglect 1.63 0.98 .31** .01 -.18**
5. Job satisfaction 3.51 1.43 -.52** -.09 .34** -.13**
6. Investment size 2.34 1.23 -.29** .08 .15** -.14** .29**
7. Quality of alternatives 3.73 1.12 .36** .25** -.12** .00 -.22** -.20**
** p < .01
TABLE 4
Results of Multiple Regression Analyses, Study Two
Exit Voice Loyalty Neglect
Job satisfactiona -.432** -.071 .331** -.112*

Investment size - .117** .164** .054 -.121*
Quality of alternatives .228** .276** -.041 -.052
Multiple R .582 .297 .358 .176
Adjusted R2 .335 .082 .123 .025
Multivariate F3,462 79.02** 14.90** 22.71** 4.93**
a Values for job satisfaction, investment size, and quality of alt
coefficients.
*p < .05
**p < .01
strongly correlated with exit among low-satisfaction respondents as among

high-satisfaction respondents (r = .31 and .32, respectively; z = 0.00).
To explore possible gender effects, we calculated correlations among all
predictors and criteria separately for the two genders. The only notable
difference was for the investment-voice relationship. Consistent with the
results of study one, high investment size consistently promoted voice among
men but not among women (r = .16 and .00, respectively; z = 3.49).
STUDY THREE
Methods
Subjects. Forty men and 40 women participated to fulfill the research

experience requirements for introductory psychology at the University of
Kentucky during the 1984-85 academic year. We randomly assigned each of
six students recruited for each session to one of eight conditions; ultimately,
there were ten subjects per condition. Students received $5.00 for their par-
ticipation in the two-hour experiment.
Procedures. The study was a simulation of a newspaper newsroom. The
experimenter described a variety of available work tasks and discussed the
average pay per session for each task. She then allegedly randomly assigned
initial tasks to subjects; however, the task-decoding reports written in
"reporters' speed writing"-did not actually vary. The experimenter told the
subjects that after three work sessions they would have the option of switch-
ing to a second task, which was in fact always transcribing telex messages.
She also informed them that their supervisor, "an M.B.A. student," was in
the next room behind a one-way mirror. Subjects were given ten minutes to
read training materials to "prepare them for their work." At the end of the
training session the supervisor entered the room, distributed work materials,
and left. He returned after five minutes, collected the work, and retired to his
office to prepare written evaluations. When he returned, he gave all subjects
a written evaluation of their work during the first session and distributed a
set of materials for the second session. This procedure was followed for a
total of three work sessions.
Independent variable manipulations. Four variables were manipulated:
Prior satisfaction was varied by manipulating anticipated pay for the as-
signed task; on the average, expected pay was $4.30 for the high-satisfaction
condition and $2.85 for the low-satisfaction condition. Quality of alterna-
tives was manipulated by varying anticipated pay for the new task available
after three work sessions; on the average, expected pay was $4.35 for the
good-alternatives condition and $2.90 for the poor-alternatives condition.
Investment size was varied through the training subjects received. They
received specific work training in how to decode reporters' speed writing in
the high-investment condition and received general work training that de-
scribed a variety of newsroom tasks in the low-investment condition. Over
the course of three sessions, the task became increasingly difficult and the
supervisor's evaluations became increasingly negative. The evaluation feed-

back form included five-option evaluations (poor, passing, adequate, good,
superior) along seven dimensions of performance (e.g., completeness of work,
readability). Over the three sessions, the job became more difficult and the
evaluator's feedback declined from an average rating of adequate-to-good in
session 1 to an average rating of passing-to-adequate in session 2 to an
average rating of passing in session 3. The supervisor's feedback included
written comments, which also became more negative: "This was about what
I expected for the first work period" for session 1, "I'm not really happy with
this one. Work harder!" for session 2, and "This was pretty poor, and the
story wasn't that hard. Are you awake!" for session 3.
Manipulation checks and dependent variables. At the end of each work
session subjects completed questionnaires that measured self-reported tend-
encies toward each response and assessed the effectiveness of each manipu-
lation. On the measures of response to job dissatisfaction, subjects were
asked to assume that the previous session represented experiences during a
one-month period7 and to report on likelihood of engaging in each response.
All measures were 7-point scales (see Appendix C). At the end of session 3,
behavioral measures were obtained. Subjects selected one of four memos to
send the supervisor. The memos read as follows:
Exit: I have considered the benefits and drawbacks of my alterna-
tive and the task I've been doing. I would like to transfer to my
alternative job.
Voice: I'd like to keep working on this task, but you should make
some changes. I have some questions and suggestions regarding
our feedback and evaluation system. Can I talk to you about my
ideas?
Loyalty: All things considered, I believe the best thing for me is

to stick with my current task. I would say that a job like this is
better than most.
Neglect: I've lost some enthusiasm for my work, but I'll continue
with my assigned job. If you looked around you'd probably see
that workers here are becoming unhappy and are losing their
motivation to work hard.
Results
Reliability of measures. Table 1 presents reliability coefficients for the

manipulation checks and response-to-dissatisfaction items. As in studies
one and two, we evaluated the discriminant validity of our items by calculat-
ing correlations between all items within each set and the items that com-
posed every other set. Those statistics provided good evidence for distinc-
7 Participants were asked to adopt this time perspective so that all available responses to job
dissatisfaction would in fact be viable options. For example, it makes sense to speak of tenden-
cies toward increased absenteeism or lateness when speaking of a month on a real job, whereas
such responses are not logical possibilities within the context of a two-hour laboratory
experiment.
tiveness across sets (average r = .00; range = -.28-.25); the average correla-
tion between items from opposing categories was -.12, and the average
correlation between items from adjacent categories was .06 (average r within
categories = .50). Since our measures appeared to be acceptably reliable
within categories and distinct across categories, we calculated a single aver-
aged measure of each construct.
Manipulation checks. Four-factor analyses of variance with three
between-subjects factors (satisfaction, investments, alternatives) and one
within-subjects factor (session 1, 2, or 3) were performed on the manipula-
tion checks to assess the effectiveness of each experimental manipulation. In
comparison to subjects in the low-prior-satisfaction condition, those in the
high-prior-satisfaction condition reported significantly greater satisfac-
tion with their assigned task (x = 2.54 and 4.68, respectively; F1,209 = 207.28,
p < .001). Subjects in the low-investment condition reported that they had
significantly less invested in their assigned task than did those in the high-
investment condition (x = 3.71 and 5.58, respectively; F1,209 = 237.63, p <
.001). Subjects in the low-quality-of-alternatives condition viewed their alter-
native task as less attractive than did those in the high-alternatives condition
(x = 2.75 and 5.19, respectively; F1,209 = 226.58, p < .001). In addition, over the
course of the three work sessions there was a marginally significant decline in
satisfaction with working conditions (x = 3.84, 4.15, and 4.23, respectively;
F1,209 = 2.68, p < .071). Thus, participants appear to have experienced our
manipulations as intended; each of the manipulations created the intended
conditions.8
Testing model predictions: Self-report measures. A four-factor analysis
of variance on the self-report measures revealed significant multivariate ef-
fects of all four independent variables (see Table 5). Consistent with
predictions, high job satisfaction promoted voice and loyalty and inhibited
exit. The manipulation of investment size significantly affected only the
neglect measure. High-quality alternatives promoted exit and voice but did
not significantly affect the passive loyalty or neglect responses. And over
time, declining working conditions produced increases in exit, voice, and
neglect, and reductions in loyal behavior.
As did studies one and two, study three revealed a significant interaction
between job satisfaction and investment size, with high investment promot-
ing voice more strongly under conditions of high satisfaction. No other inter-
actions were statistically significant in the four-factor analyses. A five-factor
8 Further analyses of the manipulation-check data revealed that the effects discussed herein
were robust, holding not only for the averaged manipulation checks but also for the individual
manipulation check items that were combined to form the averaged measure. The effect on the
manipulation checks of the independent variable, decline in satisfaction, may have been only
marginally significant because this set of items was somewhat more heterogeneous than were
the other sets of manipulation check items (see Appendix C). Indeed, the reliability coefficient
for this set of items was only .20. However, this independent variable significantly influenced
all four measures of response to dissatisfaction, suggesting that the manipulation was probably
appropriately powerful.
TABLE 5
Results of MANOVA, Study Threea
Variables Exit Voice Loyalty Neglect Overallb
Self-report measures
High job satisfaction 2.96 4.10 4.12 2.46
Low job satisfaction 4.08 3.78 3.83 2.39
F 19.59** 4.25* 5.68* 0.24 6.26**
High investment size 3.68 3.91 3.91 2.27
Low investment size 3.41 3.98 4.04 2.58
F 0.75 0.38 2.05 4.87* 2.35*
High-quality alternatives 4.18 4.08 3.96 2.43
Low-quality alternatives 2.86 3.81 3.99 2.42
F 29.85** 3.07** 0.05 0.00 7.54**
Low decline in satisfaction 3.08 3.58 4.35 2.10
Moderate decline in satisfaction 3.58 3.90 3.95 2.47
High decline in satisfaction 3.91 4.35 3.62 2.72
F 4.90** 8.90** 8.59** 6.54** 3.94**
Behavioral measures
High job satisfaction 9 14 8 9
Low job satisfaction 15 9 5 11 1.83*
High investment size 11 13 9 7
Low investment size 13 10 4 13 1.83*
High-quality alternatives 16 11 6 7
Low-quality alternatives 8 12 7 13 1.62 *
a For the self-report measures, values are mea

behavioral measures, values are the number of
b For the self-report measures, the column la
each independent variable; for the behavioral me
proportions (for the satisfaction and investmen
tiveness contrast; for the alternatives row, the
p < .05
*p < .01
analysis of variance revealed only one significant effect involving gender:

the main effect of gender on neglect was significant, with men engaging in
higher levels of neglect than women.
Testing model predictions: Behavioral measures. At the end of three
work sessions, subjects selected one of four memos to send to the supervisor.
Table 5 displays the number who chose each response. We used tests of
differences between proportions to assess the effects of each manipulation
on response tendencies. Since subjects could elect to engage in any one of
four responses, the absolute number engaging in each response was low and
tests of differences in proportions for each individual response were rela-
tively weak. Therefore, in each test we combined two conceptually related
categories of response. For each independent variable, we examined differ-
ences in tendencies toward constructive responses (voice plus loyalty) rather
than destructive responses (exit plus neglect) and toward active responses
(exit plus voice) rather than passive responses (loyalty plus neglect). As
predicted, in comparison to participants in the low-satisfaction condition,

those in the high-satisfaction condition were more likely to engage in con-
structive responses and less likely to engage in destructive responses. Sub-
jects in the low-investment condition were more likely to react construc-
tively and less likely to react destructively. The effect for exit was weak.
Compared to subjects with low-quality alternatives, those with good alterna-
tives were more likely to react actively and less likely to react passively;
those effects were strongest for exit and neglect. As expected, the quality-of-
alternatives manipulation did not affect behaviors along the constructiveness-
destructiveness dimension, and neither the satisfaction nor investment ma-
nipulation affected behaviors along the activity-passivity dimension. There
were too few observations per cell to explore interactions or gender effects.
DISCUSSION
Meta-analytic techniques were employed to combine information and

develop summary probability estimates across the three studies (Rosenthal,
1983). Table 6 presents the results of those analyses. In calculating overall
z-scores we used the following information: For study one we employed
univariate Fs for each main effect. For study two we employed univariate Fs
for each regression coefficient. For study three we employed univariate Fs
for each main effect for the self-report measures and z-scores for individual
contrasts for the behavioral measures, weighting each resultant z by .5. Thus,
each study was equally weighted in the final combined statistic for each
effect.
The results of the three studies provide very good support for the pro-
posed theory. Consistent with the first hypothesis, high job satisfaction fairly
consistently promoted the constructive voice and loyalty responses and in-
hibited the destructive exit and neglect responses. And consistent with the
second hypothesis, high levels of investment fairly consistently encouraged
voice and loyalty responses and inhibited exit and neglect. Finally, consis-
tent with the third hypothesis, the possession of high-quality alternatives
TABLE 6
Meta-Analysis of Results: Studies One, Two, and Threea
Exit Voice Loyalty Neglect
Impact of job satisfaction 5.97*** 1.77* 5.07*** 2.49**

Impact of investment size 2.52** 2.26** 1.78* 2.91**
Impact of quality of alternatives 6.05*** 3.74*** 2.25** 1.50
a Values are z-scores from a meta-analysis. For each study, z's were
for each main effect; study two, univariate F for each regression coefficient; study three,
[(univariate F for each main effect, self-report measures) + (z for individual contrasts, behavioral
measures)]/2.
*p< .05, one-tailed test.
**p< .01, one-tailed test.
***p< .001, one-tailed test.
encouraged high levels of the active exit and voice responses and inhibited
loyalty, although this effect was somewhat inconsistently observed. However,
there was very little evidence of a link between quality of alternatives and
tendencies toward neglect.
Although the simple effects of satisfaction and investment on voice were
weak, in all three studies investment interacted with satisfaction in influenc-
ing voice. High investment size most strongly promoted voice given high
satisfaction. It may be that voice is regarded as a difficult and costly action,
and that workers engage in voice only when their motivation to improve
conditions is especially strong. Also, in studies one and two this interaction
was most pronounced for women: Men behaved as predicted, exhibiting a
higher tendency to engage in voice as a function of high investment and
satisfaction; women voiced when conditions were most supportive of voice
(given high investment and high satisfaction) or when they had nothing to
lose (given low investment and low satisfaction). This finding is consistent
with work on responses to decline in close relationships, where it has been
found that women voice in a wider range of settings than do men (Rusbult,
Johnson, & Morrow, 1986). In fact, study three's finding that men engage in
higher levels of neglect than do women may in some sense be the mirror
image of this result, given that voice and neglect are conceptual opposites.
The prediction that received the weakest support was that concerning
the impact of quality of alternatives on neglect. Support for this prediction
came from previous absence research, which suggested that neglect may be a
substitute for exit, especially when market conditions prevent employees'
quitting (Porter & Steers, 1973; Rosse & Miller, 1984). This line of reasoning
is intuitively compelling, but in light of the present findings we propose the
use of a broadened definition of alternatives, one that takes into consider-
ation not just market conditions but all alternative activities that place restric
tions on or provide alternatives to a current employment situation. It may
also be that quality of alternatives asserts asymmetrical effects. Perhaps hav
ing good alternatives encourages an individual to do something; good alterna-
tives may provide the motivation and power to "shape up or ship out."
However, the reverse may not necessarily be true-people with poor-quality
alternatives are not necessarily driven toward greater and greater passivity.
Study three revealed that over the course of an unfolding period of
dissatisfaction, employees showed increased intentions to engage in exit,
voice, and neglect and evidenced reduced loyalty. This finding suggests that
there may be interesting temporal aspects of responding to job dissatisfaction.
It is possible that there are natural progressions in response mode, such that
loyalty is more probable as an initial response than it is following another
reaction, like voice. Indeed, this may be particularly true if dissatisfaction
persists or conditions decline further. It is also possible that loyalty and the
other responses are mutually exclusive, so that engaging in exit or voice or
neglect implies that an individual is not likely to be engaging in loyalty.
However, such a speculation is clearly tentative at present and remains to be
explored in future work.
Several limitations of the present work should be noted. First, only

study two examined actual employees in real organizational settings. Future
investigators will need to assess the validity of the present model across
varied employment settings. Second, none of the three studies measured
actual behavior. Study three obtained somewhat behavioral measures of re-
sponse intentions, but future research will need to examine the relations
among model variables and actual measures of exit, voice, loyalty, and ne-
glect such as absence behaviors and grievance filing. Third, with the excep-
tion of study three, the present work was primarily static. In future research
it will be important to explore dynamic aspects of responding to job
dissatisfaction, including the processes by which employees move from one
mode of response to another, probable combinations of responses, and the
intensification of responses over the course of an extended period of declin-
ing satisfaction. Fourth, the present model does not include the impact of
individual-level characteristics on response tendencies. Previous research
has shown that needs, stable attitudes, traits, and other enduring disposi-
tions influence important organizational behaviors such as quitting, atten-
dance, and performance (Spector, 1982; Steers & Braunstein, 1976). A fifth
point is that broad organizational characteristics such as size and culture
may serve as moderators of the causal relationships examined in the present
work. For example, our findings regarding the interaction of satisfaction and
investment in influencing voice may be illuminated by Freeman and Medoff's
(1984) work on industrial relations, suggesting that institutional factors may
enhance felt efficacy and resultant voice tendencies. And sixth, although the
present work may serve as the basis for a theory of employee retention, the
precise means by which practitioners should modify organizational policies
so as to maximize desirable employee behaviors remain to be carefully
explicated. Detailed research on individual responses and on specific
organizational programs and policies may enhance our ability to predict the
effects of innovative personnel and management actions. For example, do
pay milestones and golden handcuffs-policies designed to discourage exit
also inhibit destructive neglect?
Several strengths of the present work are also noteworthy. First, the
consistency of our findings across three studies with quite varied research
strategies reveals that the current findings are not method-specific. Second
by employing a variety of measurement techniques, we demonstrated that
the theory's predictions are valid for both self-descriptions and behavioral
tendencies and that the predictions are valid for both reactions to particula
work situations and more general behavioral tendencies. Third, by exploring
relationships among predictors and criteria that were fairly broad, hetero-
geneous, and abstractly defined, we uncovered some general principles abou
behavior in organizations, thus integrating findings from disparate studies
that have explored rather specific functional relationships.
The present approach extends our theoretical understanding of employe
responses to job dissatisfaction in several important respects. First, it is
noteworthy that the present model identifies multiple dimensions that differ-
entiate among the various responses to decline and emphasizes the diversity
of factors that enter into the prediction of response tendencies. This ap-
proach suggests that although progression theories (Beehr & Gupta, 1978)
may capture some important features of response patterns, the various reac-
tions to job dissatisfaction do not simply unroll in increasing intensity.
Instead, critical features of an employee's unique employment situation are
clearly important influences on the four types of response. Second, in the
current model employees' attempts to change their organization are viewed
as constructive responses to dissatisfaction, as recuperative mechanisms,
and (at least in part) as attempts to protect investments made over the course
of employment. Responses such as grievance filing have previously been
accounted for primarily by reference to employee dissatisfaction and the
presence of unions (Dalton & Todor, 1982). Third, the present approach
views employees as sensible, somewhat thoughtful, and frequently planful;
individuals are characterized as active controllers of events and outcomes in
a work setting, responding in predictable ways to current situational factor
In contrast, in some models there has been greater emphasis on irrational
cognitions, emotions, or unconscious conditioning. For example, Mowday,
Porter, and Steers (1982) emphasized the power of affective forces in predict-
ing employees' efforts to change work situations, and proponents of adapta-
tion models (Rosse & Hulin, 1985; Rosse & Miller, 1984) have assumed that
conditioning, role models, and social norms are important influences on
responses.
CONCLUSIONS
The current work contributes to the understanding of behavio

zations by outlining and empirically testing a comprehensive yet
ous model of responses to job dissatisfaction. That predictions ad
our exchange model of exit, voice, loyalty, and neglect responses
ported across a diversity of measurement techniques, research se
participant populations provides a high degree of confidence in t
of the present approach. Ultimately, the primary function of the
loyalty, and neglect model may be an integrative one: to provide a broad
model of the essential categories of response to dissatisfaction and the essen-
tial causes of each form of response. The model may also serve as a common
framework-or general theory-into which researchers may incorporate new
predictors and additional responses to dissatisfaction. Finally, the present
work suggests that the general exchange theory orientation may be a fruitful
approach in accounting for employee responses to decline in job satisfaction.
REFERENCES
Adler, S., & Golan, J. 1981. Lateness as withdrawal behavior. Journal of Applied Psy
66: 544-554.
Allen, R. E., & Keaveny, T. J. 1985. Factors differentiating grievants and nongrie
Relations, 38: 519-534.
Aranya, N., Kushnir, T., & Valency, A. 1986. Organizational commitment in a male dominate
profession. Human Relations, 39: 433-448.
Arkes, H. R., & Blumer, C. 1985. The psychology of sunk cost. Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, 35: 124-140.
Bateman, T. S., & Organ, D. W. 1983. Job satisfaction and the good soldier: The relati
between affect and employee "citizenship." Academy of Management Journal, 2
595.
Becker, H. S. 1960. Notes on the concept of commitment. American Journal of Sociolegy, 66:
32-40.
Beehr, T. A., & Gupta, N. 1978. A note on the structure of employee withdrawal. Orga
Behavior and Human Performance, 21: 73-79.
Behrend, H. 1953. Absence and labor turnover in a changing economic climate. Occupational
Psychology, 27: 69-79.
Blau, G. J. 1985. Relationship of extrinsic, intrinsic, and demographic predictors to various
types of withdrawal behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70: 442-450.
Blau, P. M. 1964. Exchange and power in social life. New York: Wiley.
Buchanan, B. II. 1974. Building organizational commitment: The socialization of managers in
work organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 19: 533-546.
Calder, B. J. 1977. An attribution theory of leadership. In B. M. Staw & G. R. Salancik (Eds.),
New directions in organizational behavior: 179-204. Chicago: St. Clair.
Campion, M. A., & Mitchell, M. M. 1986. Management turnover: Experiential differences be-
tween former and current managers. Personnel Psychology, 39: 57-69.
Clegg, C. W. 1983. The psychology of employee lateness, absence, and turnover. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 68: 88-101.
Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. 1975. Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the be-
havioral sciences. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. 1979. Quasi-experimentation: Design and analysis issues for
field settings. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.
Cotton, J. L., & Tuttle, J. M. 1986. Employee turnover: A meta-analysis and review of im-
plications for research. Academy of Management Review, 11: 55-70.
Crowther, J. 1957. Absence and turnover in the divisions of one company: 1950-1955.
Occupational Psychology, 31: 256-270.
Dalessio, A., Silverman, W. H., & Schuck, J. R. 1986. Paths to turnover: A re-analysis and review
of existing data on the Mobley, Horner, and Hollingsworth model. Human Relations, 39:
245-263.
Dalton, D. R., & Todor, W. D. 1982. Antecedents of grievance-filing behavior: Attitude

consistency and the union steward. Academy of Management Journal, 25: 158
Dillman, D. A. 1978. Mail and telephone surveys: The total design method. New Yo
Dreher, G. F., & Dougherty, T. W. 1980. Turnover and competition for expected job o
exploratory analysis. Academy of Management Journal, 23: 766-772.
Farrell, D. 1983. Exit, voice, loyalty, and neglect as respon

mensional scaling study. Academy of Management Journal, 26: 596-607.
Farrell, D., & Robb, D. L. 1980. Lateness to work: A study of withdrawal from work. Paper
presented at the annual meeting of the Academy of Management, Detroit.
Farrell, D., & Rusbult, C. E. 1981. Exchange variables as predictors of job satisfaction, job
commitment, and turnover: The effects of rewards, costs, alternatives, and investments.
Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 28: 78-95.
Farrell, D., & Rusbult, C. E. 1986. Measurement of responses to job dissatisfaction: Exit, voice,
loyalty, and neglect. Unpublished manuscript, Western Michigan University.
Ferris, G. R. 1985. Role of leadership in the employee withdrawal process: A constructive
replication. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70: 777-781.
Ferris, K. R., & Aranya, N. 1983. A comparison of two organizational commitment scales.
Personnel Psychology, 36: 87-97.
Fleishman, E. A., & Harris, E. F. 1962. Patterns of leadership behavior related to employee
grievances and turnover. Personnel Psychology, 15: 43-56.
Freeman, R. B., & Medoff, J. L. 1984. What do unions do? New York: Basic Books.
Gaudet, F. J. 1963. Solving the problems of employee absence. New York: American Man-
agement Association.
Guzzo, R. A., Jette, R. D., & Katzell, R. A. 1985. The effects of psychologically based inter-
vention programs on worker productivity: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 38:
275-291.
Hill, J. M. M., & Trist, E. L. 1955. Changes in accidents and other absences with len
Human Relations, 8: 121-152.
Hirschman, A. 0. 1970. Exit, voice, and loyalty: Responses to decline in firms, organizations,
and states. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Hom, P. W., Griffeth, R. W., & Sellaro, C. L. 1984. The validity of Mobley's (1977) model of
employee turnover. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 34: 141-174.
Homans, G. C. 1961. Social behavior: Its elementary forms. New York: Harcourt, Brace, &
World.
Hulin, C. L., & Smith, P. C. 1965. A linear model of job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychol-
ogy, 49: 209-216.
Jackofsky, E. F. 1984. Turnover and job performance: An integrated process model. Academy of
Management Review, 9: 74-83.
Jackofsky, E. F., & Peters, L. H. 1983. The hypothesized effects of ability in the turnover
process. Academy of Management Review, 8: 46-49.
Keller, R. T. 1984. The role of performance and absenteeism in the prediction of turnover.
Academy of Management Journal, 27: 176-183.
Kelly, H. H., & Thibaut, J. W. 1978. Interpersonal relations: A theory of interdependence. New
York: Wiley.
Koch, J. L., & Steers, R. M. 1978. Job attachment, satisfaction, and turnover among public sector
employees. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 12: 119-128.
Lammers, C. J. 1969. Strikes and mutinies: A comparative study of organizational conflicts
between rulers and ruled. Administrative Science Quarterly, 14: 558-572.
Larson, E. W., & Fukami, C. V. 1985. Employee absenteeism: The role of ease of movement.
Academy of Management Journal, 28: 464-471.
Locke, E. A. 1969. What is job satisfaction? Organizational Behavior and Human Perfor-
mance, 4: 309-336.
March, J. G., & Simon, H. A. 1958. Organizations. New York: Wiley.

McLaughlin, G. W., & Butler, R. P. 1974. Use of weighting and data on alternative
predict retention and commitment: Journal of Applied Psychology, 59: 87-89.
Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. 1984: Testing the "side-bet theory" of organizational com
Some methodological considerations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69: 372-3
Miceli, M. P., & Near, J. P. 1984. The relationships among beliefs, organizational posi
whistle-blowing status: A discriminant analysis: Academy of Management Jo
687-705.
Milburn, T. W., Schuler, R. S., & Watman, K. H. 1983: Organizational crisis, part II:
and responses. Human Relations, 36: 1161-1180.
Mowday, R. T., Koberg, C. S., & McArthur, A. W. 1984. The psychology of the withdrawal
process: A cross-validation test of Mobley's intermediate linkages model of turnover in two
samples. Academy of Management Journal, 27: 79-94.
Mowday, R. T., Porter, L. W., & Steers, R. M. 1982. Employee-organization linkages: The
psychology of commitment, absenteeism, and turnover. New York: Academic Press.
Muchinsky, P. M. 1977. Employee absenteeism: A review of the literature: Journal of Voca-
tional Behavior, 10: 316-340.
Muchinsky, P. M., & Maassarani, M. A. 1980. Work environment effects on public sector
grievances. Personnel Psychology, 33: 403-414.
O'Connor, E. J., Peters, L. H., Pooyan, A., Weekley, J., Frank, B., & Erenkrantz, B. 1984. Situa-
tional constraint effects on performance, affective reactions, and turnover: A field replica-
tion and extension: Journal of Applied Psychology, 69: 663-672.
Owens, A. C. 1966. Sick leave among railwaymen threatened by redundancy: A pilot study.
Occupational Psychology, 40: 43-52.
Pascale, R. T. 1978. Personnel practices and employee attitudes: A study of Japanese- and
American-managed firms in the United States. Human Relations, 31: 597-615.
Petty, M. M., & Bruning, N. S. 1980: Relationships between employees' attitudes and error rates
in public welfare programs. Academy of Management Journal, 23: 546-551.
Pfeffer, J., & Lawler, J. 1980. Effects of job alternatives, extrinsic rewards, and behavioral commit-
ment on attitude toward the organization: A field test of the insufficient justification
paradigm. Administrative Science Quarterly, 25: 38-56.
Porter, L. W., & Steers, R. M. 1973. Organizational, work, and personal factors in employee
turnover and absenteeism. Psychological Bulletin, 80: 151-176.
Price, J. L., & Mueller, C. W. 1981. A causal model of turnover for nurses. Academy of Manage-
ment Journal, 24: 543-565.
Price, J., Dewire, J., Nowack, J., Schenkel, K., & Ronan, W. 1976. Three studies of grievance.
Personnel Journal, 55 (1): 33-37.
Ritzer, G., & Trice, H. M. 1969. An empirical study of Howard Becker's side-bet theory. Social
Forces, 47: 475-479.
Rosenthal, R. 1983. Meta-analysis: Toward a more cumulative social science. In L. Bick

(Ed.), Applied social psychology annual, vol. 4: 65-93. Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage
Publications.
Rosse, J. G., & Hulin, C. L. 1985. Adaptation to work: An analysis of employee health, withdraw
and change. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 36: 324-347.
Rosse, J. G., & Miller, H. E. 1984. Relationship between absenteeism and other employee behaviors.
In P. S. Goodman & R. S. Atkins (Eds.), Absenteeism: New approaches to understanding,
measuring, and managing employee absence: 194-227. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Rubin, J. Z., & Brocker, J. 1975. Factors affecting entrapment in waiting situations: The Rosen-
crantz and Guildenstern effect. Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology, 31:1054-1063.
Rusbult, C. E., & Farrell, D. 1983. A longitudinal test of the investment model: The impact on job
satisfaction, job commitment, and turnover of variations in rewards, costs, alternatives, and
investments. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68: 429-438.
Rusbult, C. E., Johnson, D. J., & Morrow, G. D. 1986. Impact of couple patterns of problem
solving on distress and nondistress in dating relationships. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 50: 744-753.
Rusbult, C. E., & Lowery, D. 1985. When bureaucrats get the blues: Responses to dissatisfaction
among federal employees. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 15: 80-103.
Rusbult, C. E., Zembrodt, I. M., & Gunn, L. K. 1982. Exit, voice, loyalty, and neglect: Responses to
dissatisfaction in romantic involvements. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
43: 1230-1242.
Schneider, J. 1976. The "greener grass" phenomenon: Differential effects of a w

alternative on organizational participation and withdrawal intentions. Organi
havior and Human Performance, 16: 308-333.
Sheridan, J. E. 1985. A catastrophe model of employee withdrawal leading to low job performance,
high absenteeism, and job turnover during the first year of employment. Academy of Man-
agement Journal, 28: 88-109.
Smith, C. A., Organ, D. W., & Near, J. P. 1983. Organizational citizenship behavior: Its nature
and antecedents. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68: 653-663.
Spector, P. E. 1982. Behavior in organizations as a function of employee's locus of control.
Psychological Bulletin, 91: 482-497.
Spencer, D. G. 1986. Employee voice and employee retention. Academy of Management Jour-
nal, 29: 488-502.
Staw, B. M. 1984. Organizational behavior: A review and reformation of the field's outcome
variables. Annual Review of Psychology, 35: 627-666.
Steel, R. P., & Ovalle, N. K. II. 1984. A review and meta-analysis of research on the relationship
between behavioral intentions and employee turnover. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69:
673-686.
Steers, R. M., & Braunstein, D. N. 1976. A behaviorally-based measure of manifest needs in

work settings. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 9: 251-266.
Steers, R. M., & Rhodes, S. R. 1978. Major influences on employee attendance: A process model.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 63: 391-407.
Stumpf, S. A., & Hartman, K. 1984. Individual exploration to organizational committment or
withdrawal. Academy of Management Journal, 27: 308-329.
Thibaut, J. W., & Kelley, H. H. 1959. The social psychology of groups. New York: Wiley.
Todor, W. D. 1980. A movement paradox: Turnover? Transfer? Paper presented at the annual
meeting of the Academy of Management, Detroit.
Todor, W. D., & Dalton, D. R. 1982. The relationship of voluntary internal mobility to job
satisfaction, commitment, and intent to stay. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the
Academy of Management, New York.
VanZelst, R. H., & Kerr, W. A. 1953. Workers' attitudes toward merit rating. Personnel Psychol-
ogy, 6: 159-172.
Wanous, J. P., Stumpf, S. A., & Bedrosian, H. 1979. Job survival of new employees. Personnel
Psychology, 32: 651-662.
Watson, C. J. 1981. An evaluation of some aspects of the Steers and Rhodes model of employee
attendance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 66: 385-389.
Wells, D. L., & Muchinsky, P. M. 1985. Performance antecedents of voluntary and involuntary
managerial turnover. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70: 329-336.
Werbel, J. D., & Gould, S. 1984. A comparison of the relationship of commitment to turnover in
recent hires and tenured employees. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69: 687-690.
Wolpin, J., & Burke, R. J. 1985. Relationship between absenteeism and turnover: A function of
the measures? Personnel Psychology, 38: 57-75.
Youngblood, S. A. 1984. Work, nonwork, and withdrawal. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69:
106-117.
Youngblood, S. A., Mobley, W. H., & Meglino, B. M. 1983. A longitudinal analysis

turnover process. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68: 507-516.
Zald, M. N., & Berger, M. 1978. Social movements in organizations: Coup d'etat, insur
and mass movements. American Journal of Sociology, 83: 823-861.
APPENDIX A
Research Materials and Questionnaire Items, Study One

Simulation Essaysa
Please attempt to place yourself in the position of X, the major character in the following
essay. Try to imagine that person's feelings and attitudes as vividly as you can, considering
what it would be like to be in that situation. You may need to read the essay a couple of
times before you are completely familiar with the details of the situation. Then complete the
attached questionnaire, indicating how you would react if you were in that situation.
Imagine that you are X. You are working for a good company that pays you a high salary,
and your job involves work that you find to be really enjoyable. Thus, you've felt extremely
satisfied with your job. You've held this position for a relatively long period of time; you've
worked there for two years. Thus, you've invested a lot of time and energy in your job.
Recently you were offered a job by another company that you find to be very attractive-the
pay is good and you believe your work would be very challenging and satisfying.
Activities at the office where you work had been proceeding smoothly, but in the past week a
problem developed. One day this week your immediate supervisor assigned you a report to
complete, told you that the project was your primary responsibility, and said you could
organize the sections of the report in whatever way you felt was best. Later in the day the
office manager (your supervisor's supervisor) stopped by your desk, picked up and read
your work, and gave you a long list of instructions regarding how to change your work,
including changing the organization of your report. You didn't feel that the office manager's
advice was very good, but worried about whether you should do what the manager
suggested or complete the report the way you had originally planned. You felt torn between
the two courses of action, and felt unhappy about the problem with which you were faced.
Remember, you've worked for this company for a long period of time, you find your job to
be extremely satisfying, and you've recently been offered an alternative job that is very
attractive to you. How is X going to react to the situation? Answer the following questions
as you would if you were X. Record a response for each item using the following scale:
Definitely 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Definitely
Would Not React Would React
In This Way In This Way
Questionnaire Itemsb
Prior satisfaction, manipulation checks

Before the problem emerged, how happy had you been with your job?
Before the problem emerged, to what extent had you been satisfied with your job?
Investment size, manipulation checks
Before the problem emerged, for how long had you been working ac your job?
Before the problem, how much time and energy had you invested in your job?
Quality of alternatives, manipulation checks
How attractive is your alternative job offer?
To what extent do you think you would be satisfied if you were to accept your alternative
offer?
Exit, dependent measures

I would think about quitting my job.
I would give notice that I intended to quit.
I would accept my alternative job offer.
I would quit my current job.
Voice, dependent measures
I would go to my immediate supervisor to discuss the problem.
I would ask my co-workers for advice about what to do.
I would talk to the office manager about how I felt about the situation.
I would try to solve the problem by suggesting changes in the way work was supervised in
the office.
Loyalty, dependent measures

I would hang in there and wait for the problem to go away.
I would stick with my job through good times and bad times.
I would think that my job was probably as good as most.
I would patiently wait for the problem to disappear.
Neglect dependent measures
I would lose motivation to do my job as well as I might otherwise.
I would show up late because I wasn't in the mood for work.
I would call in sick occasionally because I didn't feel like working.
I would put less effort into my job.
I would take a lot of breaks or not work as hard.
a Italicized portions of essays are the sections that differed across conditions. There were
eight versions of the essay, representing a full 2 x 2 x 2 factorial design.
b All items for manipulation checks were 9-point bipolar scales. The items for exit, voic
loyalty, and neglect were anchored with 1 = definitely would not react in this way, 9 = definite
would react in this way; these items were randomly ordered.
APPENDIX B
Questionnaire Items, Study Two a

Demographic Information Items
The demographic information items measured age, gender, race, marital status, highest year
of schooling completed, job title, and personal income.
Independent Variable Items

Satisfaction, independent variable measures
Concrete measures: The concrete measures of job satisfaction assessed feelings regarding
pay, co-workers, supervision, chances for advancement, type of work, job security, and working
conditions (not very satisfied, moderately satisfied, or very satisfied).
Global measures: If you had to decide all over again whether to take the job you now
have, what would you decide? If a friend asked if he/she should apply for a job like yours
with your employer, what would you recommend? How does this job compare to your ideal job?
How does your job measure up to the sort of job you wanted when you took it? All things con-
sidered, how satisfied are you with your current job?
Investment size, independent variable measures
Concrete measures: The concrete measures of investment size concerned the degree to
which each of several objects/persons/events would be less valuable or lost if the respon-
dent were to quit the job: friends at work, pleasant community, job security, retirement
money, a job he/she felt good at, status, good school/church/doctor/etc. (give up little, give
up some, or give up much). Additional concrete items were 5-point bipolar scales that measured
specific job training, transferable education and training, apprehension of moving, duration to
familiarity with work setting, community ties, and job and company tenure (for each, number
of years and months).
Global measures: Generally speaking, how much have you invested in this job (e.g.,
time, education and training, personal identity, effort, sacrifices)? Generally speaking, to what
extent are there things uniquely associated with this job that you would lose if you were to
leave (e.g., retirement money, job security, pleasant community, recreational activities,
friends at work, status)? Generally, how much would your life be disrupted if you left this job?
All things considered, how much have you "put into" this job?
Quality of alternatives, independent variable measures
Concrete measures: The concrete measures of quality of alternatives assessed respon-
dents' judged likelihood of getting a job as good as the current one but with better pay, nicer co-
workers, more satisfactory supervision, more chances for advancement, more interesting work,
better working conditions, more job security, and more meaningful work. Additional concrete
items were 5-point bipolar scales that measured number of job offers in the last six months
(none, one, or more than one), number of workers in the geographical area with similar training
and skills, value of respondent's present job skills five years hence, favorability of job prospects
given the current economy, estimated duration to find another satisfactory job, and possession of
sufficient funds to tide respondent over during search for an alternative job.
Global measures: If you left this job, would your next job probably be better or worse than
the job you have now? How hard would it be for you to find a job with another employer with
approximately the same income and benefits you have now? How confident are you that you
would find a satisfactory job if you were to quit this job? All things considered, how do your
alternatives compare to your current job?
Dependent Variable Items
I have recently spent some time looking for another job.
During the next year I will probably look for a new job outside this company.
When working conditions here decline I think a lot about quitting.
I often think about quitting.
When I think of an idea that will benefit my company I make a determined effort to
implement it.
I have at least once contacted an outside agency (e.g., union) to get help in changing work-
ing conditions here.
I sometimes discuss problems at work with my employer.

When things are seriously wrong and the company won't act, I am willing to "blow the
whistle."
I have made several attempts to change working conditions here.
I generally say good things about my company even when other people criticize it.
Employees shouldn't criticize this company.
I've found that patience is a virtue at my company-time seems to solve most problems at
work.
I sometimes wear clothing (hat, jacket, pin, etc.) that bears the company's symbol or in-
signia (or I would do so if my company had such clothing).
The people in charge of this company generally know what they're doing.
Neglect, dependent measures
Sometimes when I don't feel like working I will work slowly or make errors.
I try to keep out of sight of my supervisor so I can talk to co-workers, take breaks, or do
other personal business (not work).
Now and then there are workdays where I just don't put much effort into my work.
Sometimes when I just don't feel like working I will call in sick.
I care very little about what happens to this company as long as I get a paycheck.
Now and then I arrive at work late just because I really am not in the mood for work that
day.
"All items were 5-point bipolar scales. The items for exit, voice, loyalty, and neglect were
anchored with 1 = definitely would not react in this way, 5 = definitely would react in this way;
these items were randomly ordered.
APPENDIX C
Questionnaire Items, Study Three a

Independent Variables, Manipulation Checks
Job-satisfaction measures
How adequate is your pay as compensation for this job?
Is that level of pay satisfactory to you?
How does that level of pay compare to the average pay for other newsroom tasks?
Investment-size measures
Was your training specific to the task you were assigned?
Did this training help you perform better at your job?
How helpful would that training be if you were to switch to an alternative job?
Quality-of-alternatives measures
How adequate is the pay as compensation for work on the alternative task?
Would the level of pay for the alternative task be satisfactory to you?
How does that level of pay compare to the average pay for other newsroom tasks?
Decline-in-satisfaction measures
How difficult was your work during this session?
How well do you think you performed during this session?
To what extent was work during this session satisfying?
Dependent variables, self-report items
I am seriously considering quitting my assigned job for my alternative job.
I am thinking about transferring from my assigned job to my alternative job.
I want to switch to my alternative newsroom job.

I want to trade my assigned job for my alternative job.
I will tell the management that I want to adopt my alternative job.
I have an idea that I think will improve the feedback system, and I will make a serious
effort to implement it.
I want to discuss the evaluation/feedback system with my supervisor.
I want to talk things over with my co-workers to get their help in changing working
conditions.
I want to suggest changes in the procedures by which work is assigned or evaluated.
I want to change the way in which things are done in the newsroom.
I want to talk to my supervisor about the difficulty of the job and/or the nature of the
feedback.
I will work harder-this job is difficult, but "do-able."
I will say good things about my assigned job even when other people criticize it.
I will patiently wait for the evaluation system to improve.
I think that my job is probably as good as most.
I will quietly stick with my assigned job through good and bad times.
There are some things about the assigned task that bother me, but every job has some
negative features.
I will speak highly of the job to friends.
Neglect, dependent measures
I have lost motivation for my assigned job; I might work more slowly or make more errors.
I might call in sick occasionally because I don't feel like working on my job.
I feel like putting less effort into my assigned job.
I will begin to take a lot of breaks and do less work.
I might begin to show up late because I am not in the mood for working at my job.
I have quit caring about my job and will allow conditions to get worse and worse.
I feel like saying something rude to my supervisor.
a All items were 7-point bipolar scales, with 1 = not all and 7 = completely or 1 = definitely
would not react in this way, 7 = definitely would react in this way. On the response-to-job-
dissatisfaction self-report items, subjects were asked to assume that their experience during the
previous session represented experiences during a one-month period. The exit, voice, loyalty,
and neglect items were randomly ordered.
Caryl Rusbult received her Ph.D. degree in psychology from the University of North
Carolina at Chapel Hill. She was an associate professor at the University of Kentucky
until 1986, at which time she returned to the Department of Psychology at the Uni-
versity of North Carolina at Chapel Hill as an associate professor. In addition to her
research on retention behaviors, her research interests include commitment in close
relationsips and employee compensation.
Dan Farrell received his Ph.D degree in organizational sociology from the University of
Iowa. He is currently an associate professor of management at Western Michigan
University. In addition to his research on retention behaviors, his interests include
political behavior in organizations, especially whistle-blowing.
Glen Rogers received his Ph.D. degree in psychology from the University of Kentucky.
He is currently a research associate in the Office of Research and Evaluation at Alverno
College in Milwaukee, Wisconsin.
Arch Mainous is currently a Ph.D. candidate in the Department of Sociology at the
University of Texas at Austin.

Academy of Management The Academy of Management Journal

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Academy of Management The Academy of Management Journal

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Impact of Exchange Variables on Exit, Voice, Loyalty, and Neglect: An Integrative Model

of Responses to Declining Job Satisfaction

IMPACT OF EXCHANGE VARIABLES

One of the most important themes in the history of research on organiza-

filing. Although that approach to the study of the consequences of declining

loyalty, and neglect differ along dimensions of constructiveness versus de-

THE IMPACT OF EXCHANGE VARIABLES

Under what circumstances are employees likely to engage in each cate-

engage in exit and neglect than employees with low over-

Third, to the degree that employees have high-quality alternatives to th

TESTS OF THE MODEL

We designed three studies to provide direct empirical tests o

Subjects. Sixty-four men and 64 women participated to fulfill the re-

Each subject read an essay describing a hypothetical situation in which the

Reliability of measures. Reliability coefficients were calculated for the

Job Investment Quality of

Study one .97 .81 .98 .89 .45 .75 .79

a Table values are the alphas for the se

5 Further analyses of the manipulation-c

Variablesb Exit Voice Loyalty Neglect Multivariate F/

a Values are the mean level of each res

To explore the boundaries of the simple additive model presented in th

Respondents. The respondents were employees of a large communica-

Reliability of measures. Table 1 presents reliability coefficients for each

Variables Means s.d. 1 2 3 4 5 6

1. Exit 1.93 1.28

Exit Voice Loyalty Neglect

Job satisfactiona -.432** -.071 .331** -.112*

strongly correlated with exit among low-satisfaction respondents as among

Subjects. Forty men and 40 women participated to fulfill the research

supervisor's evaluations became increasingly negative. The evaluation feed-

Loyalty: All things considered, I believe the best thing for me is

Reliability of measures. Table 1 presents reliability coefficients for the

Variables Exit Voice Loyalty Neglect Overallb

a For the self-report measures, values are mea

analysis of variance revealed only one significant effect involving gender:

predicted, in comparison to participants in the low-satisfaction condition,

Meta-analytic techniques were employed to combine information and

Exit Voice Loyalty Neglect

Impact of job satisfaction 5.97*** 1.77* 5.07*** 2.49**

Several limitations of the present work should be noted. First, only

The current work contributes to the understanding of behavio

Dalton, D. R., & Todor, W. D. 1982. Antecedents of grievance-filing behavior: Attitude

Farrell, D. 1983. Exit, voice, loyalty, and neglect as respon

March, J. G., & Simon, H. A. 1958. Organizations. New York: Wiley.

Rosenthal, R. 1983. Meta-analysis: Toward a more cumulative social science. In L. Bick

Schneider, J. 1976. The "greener grass" phenomenon: Differential effects of a w

Steers, R. M., & Braunstein, D. N. 1976. A behaviorally-based measure of manifest needs in

Youngblood, S. A., Mobley, W. H., & Meglino, B. M. 1983. A longitudinal analysis

Research Materials and Questionnaire Items, Study One

Prior satisfaction, manipulation checks

Exit, dependent measures

Loyalty, dependent measures

Questionnaire Items, Study Two a

Independent Variable Items

I sometimes discuss problems at work with my employer.

Questionnaire Items, Study Three a

I want to switch to my alternative newsroom job.

Anda mungkin juga menyukai

Job satisfactiona -.432 -.071 .331 -.112*

Impact of job satisfaction 5.97*** 1.77* 5.07* 2.49